Breaking at the ABC: Ivanka Trump probably Gitmo-bound

This entry was posted in American politics, Fake News, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Breaking at the ABC: Ivanka Trump probably Gitmo-bound

  1. Carpe Jugulum

    It’s official, they have jumped the shark 🦈

  2. pbw

    Buried in the ABC item:

    United We Dream, an immigrant youth-led social action group, launched an online boycott petition that said Unanue had “aligned the Goya brand with Trump’s white supremacist agenda”.

    “If Goya wants our business, they must respect and fight for our humanity,” the group said.

    The hashtags #Goyaway and #BoycottGoya began trending on Twitter.

    Then there’s this.

    Republican politicians like senator Ted Cruz did the opposite, calling the campaign an attempt by “the Left” to “silence” free speech.
    Cruz said his boycotting of Nike products last year was over the company’s decision to pull a sneaker after it was criticised by Colin Kapernick for featuring a Revolutionary War flag design that had been co-opted by racist groups.


  3. wal1957

    “their ABC”….. Breaking the BIG news stories!!!

  4. Dave in Marybrook

    Also linked as related is Kathrine Diss’s personal story of coming down with WuFlu after mixing with the deplorables.
    Juvenile journalism, after a few weeks locked in her basement it’s still written with all the continuity Joe Biden.
    It goes, in terms of geography- the timeline is inscrutable to me-
    Tulsa- her symptoms in her basement in DC- America- her symptoms again- international health insurance- a testing clinic- a nurse’s uncovered nose “speaking volumes”- Trump- her symptoms again, sleeping sickness this time- a phonecall from the clinic, tests positive but strangely doesn’t update her will- the US, the world’s wealthiest country- her symptoms again again- the Health Dept- her symtoms again again again, still not enough to drive her to prayer- complaints of reams of paperwork, what is she, a journalist?- her symptoms again again again again- the Pacific- Australia- Melbourne- Tulsa- WuFlu.
    $1.2B a year gets us this. Clickbait activism.

  5. Bruce of Newcastle

    The ABC is probably concerned about the climate change implications.

    Global Warming Disaster: Dangerous Amounts Of Methane Released As Republicans Rush To Buy Goya Beans (14 Jul)

  6. mh

    No one holds a can of Goya beans quite like Ivanka.

  7. shady

    What we think you think! What we do you do! Oh sorry..What we say you do!

  8. Terry

    Go on Lefties. Go after his daughter. Do it.

  9. Mak Siccar

    Their ABC – the New Idea of television.

  10. duncanm

    ABC – focusing that $1B on the important issues.

  11. Rayvic

    Their ABC — it is a waste of over $1 billion of government funding, and consequently should be privatised or closed down.

  12. candy

    “Punished” – that’s a strong word.

    But the Left journalists dream of the Trump family in jail, even the kids. It excites them.

  13. mundi

    Imagine reporting this, but saying nothing about the Vic government workers being paid to campaign for labor.

  14. The interesting thing is that Goya food sales have skyrocketed since the backlash against Goya. Now if the Trumps are giving a thumbs up to Goya foods and people are flocking to buy Goya products, does that say something about how people feel about the Trumps?

  15. Tom

    Imagine reporting this, but saying nothing about the Vic government workers being paid to campaign for labor.

    Nothing matters to the leftard neural quiver they have in place of a brain but victory for the tribe and inflicting pain on their enemies — sort of like waddling Ghengis Khan wannabes wandering in the wilderness without their guns after they threw them away (‘cos they’re pacifists, doncha know) and their horses bolted and fled.

  16. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Okay so it broke the rule against public servants promoting products, but… Ivanka was just trying to compensate for the backlash the company had received by praising the God Emperor. How she thought this would help instead of making their predicament worse is beyond me. Other Hispanic-owned businesses on the panel won’t get the differential advantage that Goya gets. But she probably meant well. DJT had already gotten away with doing the same thing last month.

    The absurdity is that if the real dirt on Trump is Epstein’s parties, Ukrainian announcements, and COVID19 mismanagement, how can Ivanka’s bean tweet even rate a mention? It’s not like it was a slow news day otherwise. It’s a pretty severe form of TDS to be gunning for Ivanka just because you hate DJT.

    Sure she did something illegal, but the rule must have been written to prevent corrupt profiteering, not this photo from which Ivanka derives no tangible benefit as far as anyone can tell. The level of outrage about this reminds the electorate about the Dems and their unhinged obsession. It’s a miscalculation by the Left, as the rebound is likely to slightly improve DJT’s re-election chances by association. In the absence of any actual corruption they’re just left with the impression of “all this over a can of beans? Really?”

  17. Bronson

    The kernels been on the whisky again – conspiracy theories central. Id say the kernel ho,ds a nut.

  18. Catfeesh?

    Okay so it broke the rule against public servants promoting products

    You missed the bit about it being for private gain. What does Ivanka gain from this? Is she on a performance based contract with Goya?

  19. Tom

    How she thought this would help instead of making their predicament worse is beyond me.

    Easy. Ivanka is a lefty and, like all lefties, she lives in an idealistic fantasy land. Ivanka knew the left would go batshit insane when her father became involved with Goya, but, being a lefty dreamer, she thought the mob could be reasoned with.

  20. I’ve seen photos posted on Twatter of stores limiting Goya products to 2 per customer due to demand.
    Many others are claiming their store sold out of Goya products.
    If the left thought they’d win with this stupid stunt by cancelling a brand that’s very popular with the Hispanic community, they are sadly mistaken.
    They tried the same with the My Pillow man who is a big Trump supporter. That back fired as well.

    This is a culture war and as such I think the Trump administration has every right and even a duty to get involved, so long as they don’t directly benefit financially.

    Trump is so popular with his base because he just refuses to cave to the left and they love him for it.
    96% approval from registered Republicans. His base haven’t left him at all and in fact are even more rusted on.
    Massacre in November (sans rabid election fraud).

  21. nb

    The ABC dreams to be as popular as a Goya bean.

  22. Rob MW

    Okay so it broke the rule against public servants promoting products, ……………….

    Like the ABC, Colonel, the rule should, if time permits of course, be read in its entirety which would indicate that most of the rule deals with personal gain via affiliation. Allowances for the ABC not telling the whole story/truth are always made and must be made so as not to upset the dumbass morons, but you sir being a Cat, there is no excuse, you’re a Cat.

  23. Squirrel

    The ABC without Trump would be like (some) women’s magazines without the royal family – if he loses in November, and disappears from public life, they’ll have nothing to talk about – until they discover the massive importance of Brazil to Straya and redeploy their US contingent to the land of the (other) mardi gras.

  24. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Rob, the rule should, if time permits of course, be read carefully, which reveals that the part of the rule dealing with personal gain is combined disjunctively with the other items in the comma-separated list by the use of “or” on the final item. This means the prohibition against endorsements is independent of whether it results in personal gain of a friend. If it had been written with more brackets and precision by the Berka School of Law it would look like this:

    An employee shall not use his public office:
    1. for his own private gain, OR
    2. for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, OR
    3. for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity (including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations).

    Further, the presence of other rules contingent on personal affiliation do not erase the rule that isn’t contingent on either personal affiliation or gain. The preamble of the section (shown in the image) even specifically says that the other subparts do not limit what is prohibited by the preamble, so other references to personal affiliations are a red herring.
    This interpretation is consistent with an informal interpretation given by the Office of Government Ethics stating :

    In accordance with section 2635.702(b), an executive branch employee is prohibited from using his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that could reasonably be construed to imply that his agency or the Government sanctions or endorses his personal activities or those of another. This restriction is based upon section 101(g) of Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive Order 12731), restated at section 2635.101(b)(7) of the Standards, which prohibits the use of public office for private gain.

    Actual gain is not required, creating even the appearance of a potential private gain is prohibited, and since the only purpose of endorsing a private sector product is to create a gain for that private company, Ivanka was a bit naughty here.
    Allowances for the ABC telling the whole story/truth only when it suits them must be made, but you Rob being a Cat, there is no excuse, you’re a Cat.

  25. Kneel

    “If it had been written with more brackets and precision by the Berka School of Law…”

    Precision was avoided – on purpose. That way, you can obtain “legal advice” and get the answer you want, as it is open to interpretation. Also much easier to apply selective enforcement if it’s vague.
    The intent is clear though – and IMHO the intent was not breached in this case.

Comments are closed.